Computer artist Herbert W. Franke on creating NFTs – ARTnews.com

The 95-year-old Austrian artist Herbert W. Franke, who uses algorithms and computer programs to visualize mathematics as art, has recently become a sensation in the art world – and the crypto space.

Earlier this month, the physicist and science fiction writer was behind one of the most talked about digital works of art at a booth by the blockchain company Tezos at Art Basel. Title MONDRIAN (1979), the work paid homage to the artist Piet Mondrian’s iconic geometric images using a program written on one of the first home computers. By scanning the QR code, users could view the work and new editions of it for free.

Days before this, Franke, who studied physics in Vienna after World War II and started working for Siemens in 1953, where he performed photographic experiments after office hours, launched 100 images from his famous series “Math Art” (1980-95) as NFTs on the Quantum platform. The drop was meant to mark his birthday on May 14 and raise funds for his foundation. The NFTs were sold out in 30 seconds, and such as pioneering blockchain artist Kevin Abosch bought some.

And earlier this year at the Francisco Carolinum in Linz, Austria, there was a study of Franke’s artwork spanning decades. In line with the performance, parts of Franke’s photo archive will be made available. In addition, a new English translation of his typical publication Art and construction (1957) will be published later this year.

To find out more about Franke’s late career, ART news talked to the multihyphenate artist over a series of emails.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

ARTnews: You are involved in a number of collaborations and exhibitions in 2022. Most recently, the Tezos Foundation at Art Basel showed your work MONDRIAN (1979). Francisco Carolinum in Linz, Austria, also held a solo show this year, “Herbert W. Franke: Visionary.” Can you tell us a little more about both exhibitions?

Herbert W. Franke: MONDRIAN is the name of a dynamic program for images and sound that I developed for Texas Instruments 99/4 in 1979. It is named after the Dutch artist and follows his characteristic principles horizontally versus vertically. It can be used in two ways. First, it allows the selective construction of individual images, in a kind of step-by-step operation where the user can interactively change parameters such as colors or stripe thickness at any time. Secondly, it was also possible to design a dynamic sequence that changes constantly, controlled by algorithms and random processes. In the endless-automatic mode of operation, the program also generated algorithmic sound effects related to the image structures.

The video shown at the Tezos booth was a film produced in 2010 for my solo exhibition at the ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe in Germany. A camcorder filmed the screen connected to my historic TI 99 / 4A which I had donated to ZKM like other early computers of mine. Since the Tezos stand had this big screen, we thought of a moving movie MONDRIAN can be a fine historical work for that purpose. The only limitation was that we did not want to sell it.

As for the Francisco Carolinum exhibition, I was not very personally involved. As I mentioned, my wife Susanne had taken over all the works related to my art for many years. She has also run a website, www.art-meets-science.io, since 2007 which honors my work. She is an expert at understanding my thoughts, and Francisco Carolinum asked her to be one of the curators together with curator Genoveva Rueckert from the museum. But you can imagine that Susanne informed me about her concepts and thoughts, and we talked internally about how I should present my work.

You also made an NFT drop earlier this year. Was this your first time? Why do you choose to work with NFTs despite the volatility and divisions of this emerging technology?

We’ve only made a big drop so far on May 31, my 95th anniversary edition of 100 photos of my “Math Art” series. Before, there were test sales of three or four images to better understand the technology. And yes, you are right, volatility and division are appropriate descriptions, but this was never a problem for me as an artist, as you know. Blockchain is a whole new environment, and this technology is still in its early stages, as in the early days of computer art. But I am convinced that it has opened a new door for digital art and introduced the next generation to this new technology.

Under one interview with Right-click Save in April you talked about how in the NFT world «computer art has now entered the traditional art world together with a lot of money and therefore a powerful roar. However, this does not mean that it is mainstream yet. Artists working on code today are still struggling for recognition in the same way we did in the 1960s. “Why do you think this type of art is not mainstream yet?

I think it’s the same problem as 60 or 70 years ago. Most people, as well as most art historians, still believe that technology and visual arts do not fit together. I always argue that one should look at music where high-tech precision machines have been used to produce art for centuries. No one feels weird about this because instruments have long traditions. But most artists in the 21st century are still focused on traditional techniques.

Despite this, you have become a bit of a Twitter sensation lately, with almost 15,000 followers since you joined the platform a few months ago. Can you share how this happened? Has joining Twitter also spurred further interest in your work as a media art pioneer who explored the code of the visual since the 1950s?

We opened a Twitter account in March because the Austrian art historian and former museum director Alfred Weidinger and the German art critic and curator Anika Meier told us that we should do this, and that my work has a reputation on stage. We were not sure about this. But having 10,000 followers in two days made it clear that it is a community that can do my job. Many young artists in the field related to crypto and the metaverse tweeted that they were influenced by my work.

Until now, my wife Susanne has taken care of marketing and sales as a part-time job, but that is not her core competence, as she is a journalist and media expert. Following this overwhelming acceptance in the Twitter world, she told me that we need to “professionalize” this field to move forward on this path, and we began exploring alternatives (such as exhibitions and partnerships) to bring my accomplishments to a wider audience. By doing so, we have gained some interest in enriching various programs with my pioneering work.

On a more personal note, given that you turned 95 this year, could you share what you would consider a major turning point in your career as a digital artist and writer? Is there anything you wish you could have changed?

I think my road was pretty smooth and there were no direct turning points. However, I can mention the conversations with my mentor, German historian of modern art, Franz Roh. He told me not to look at my works as a hobby, but to do this work seriously, as it could lead to something relevant in art. This was back in the 50’s in the very beginning when I wanted to publish my first book on art with the title Art and construction – Mathematics and physics as a photographic experiment. I did not find an editor for publication.

At the same time, Roh was working on an art book to be published by Bruckmann Edition. Roh told Friedrich Bruckmann, the art historian and well-known publisher in Germany, that he wanted to go back to open the door for my manuscript to be published because he thought these ideas were important. So I came to the conclusion that a young artist needs to be published. I should also mention that Roh’s book was published then as well. I’m not sure if it was a turning point, but it helped me find my way and stay on track. I think it is very important to have a mentor like Franz Roh to pave the way for a young artist.

There’s really nothing important I want to change. But when you work as a freelancer, you have to spend some of your time making money. Sometimes the work is fine, but mostly it’s time you could have spent better on your own projects. So maybe I would have liked to have been born into a rich family where I could work 100 percent with my own ideas and projects.

What are your thoughts on the ongoing digital disruption, via NFTs, metaverse, virtual reality and other related technologies, in the art world and beyond? How do you think your work contributed to this development, as the “father of computer art”?

If we look at it from the commercial aspects of crypto art, disturbances that affect the traditional art world seem to be a new phenomenon. But in the end, disruption is nothing new at all. What is new is its public consciousness. And that’s the point, because today big money is involved in the crypto scene.

I will quote from the introduction to Art and construction: «Technology is usually dismissed as an art-hostile element. I want to try to prove that it is not, that it even opens up unimaginable new artistic territories for us. ” I was convinced that we were at the beginning of new methods in art that would be dominated by vending machines and machines. I was sure that the artist’s work would turn into analytical construction – in the digital world we call it coding now. The core of my early experiments was built with light art forms, called generative art today, which work with cameras, X-ray machines, microscopes and an analog computer to calculate these light waves.

In your opinion, how will digital art transform in the next 10-50 years?

I have always said that it is much easier to make forecasts about the future in hundreds of years and much more difficult to predict 10 years ahead. But I am convinced: We are on our way to understanding the code of art. So I dare to make a forecast: Music will develop deeply towards automated composing in the coming years. Other art forms such as visual art will follow later – literature at the end. It is the most complex art form to bring down to algorithms.